And duly, the German Propaganda is coming here

You are assuming that the commanders had the ability to change doctrine.  they did not, that was up to the rear line suppliers, who often didn't care about battlefield reports.  Duly, you are ignoring chain of command.

I was using the "commander" word in a general purpose and this is nothing of importance.
The facts are that during the Battle fo France, orders were given to fight heavy French tanks only with equipements at least as heavy as PzIVs (that were still classed in "heavy tanks" in that time).
The facts are that when KV or T-34 were encountered during the Barbarossa operation, PZIII were stepped back for PzIVs to deal with those threats.

You are saying that the Panzer 4 was better against tanks, despite the heavy evidence we have presented to show that the Panzer 3 was a far superior tank in those capabilities.  Duly, you are ignoring clear fact

Well, this is purely blindness, you have shown nothing and the penetration values are a page back if you have already forgotten them.
Anyway, whose the best tank is nothing of importance -again-, the important thing is the way is was used, something to do with ammo, you remember ? 

You are assuming that the Panzer 4 was a common tank in the early war, it simply was not.  There were only 20 in the invasion of poland, and a couple hundred in France and the begining of russia/africa, compared to a few hundred Panzer 3 in poland and france, and thousands of pz3 in russia/africa.  Of course, the main battle tank of the early war for the germans was the Panzer 1/2, sadly.  Duly, you are ignoring clear fact of numbers.

Would you be kind enough to quote where I am supposed to have written such a stupidity ?

You are assuming incorrectly the use of a support tank.  Support is in the sense of artillery support in here.  The mortar on the Panzer 4 was based off of the pioniere mortars of WW1, used to hammer bunkers and infantry opposition.  Thus why they put in a high arc, low velocity gun.  It was in no way effective against a well armoured target, the gun itself was not designed for that, and could hardly be used as such.  Duly, you are ignoring tactics of support, as well as design of the gun itself.

Sure, so when you design a "support" weapon, you shoot at soft targets and when something armored appears, you just cease fire and watch the infantry getting slaugtered ?
Maybe am I ignoring "tactics", but you surely ignore common sense ...
About the design of the gun, could you please tell me what it shows ? There's a french proverb that could be translated that way : Knowledge is just like jam, those who spread it the most are those who have the least.

You are assuming that light armoured targets are not affected by HE shells, when they clearly are, APCs and scout cars are easily destroyed by HE, not through penetration, so much as concussion.  THere's even a case of a Panzer 2 capturing a T-34 just through constant HE fire which so badly damaged the internal organs of the T-34 crew that they surrendered.  So in a sense, the Pz4 could be effective as anti-tank, but with HE shells causing concussion and fractures in the armour plate.  Duly, you are ignoring proper usage of HE shells

Yep, I ignore the proper usage of HE shells. I really do. Because of course it makes more sense of shelling a target with HE shells, praying for something to get damaged inside, instead of firering a couple of AP rounds that will definitively do the job.
What's the next story you will find ? A guy came one day and started to shot at an infantry platoon with AP rounds ? You know what ? That guy killed 3 footmen in a row! Conclusion: HE rounds are useless, let's equip the tanks with AP rounds only!

No really, if you want to start something like: I'm an expert, you're an ignorant, so shut up I'm right, then I give up, this discusion leads nowhere.

It's just pathetic that you remain stuck in your own little certitudes without trying to be fair in your arguments just for the sake of being right.

Hum, about reenactor, my bad, I mistranslated the word.
I understood it as "an historian who tries to rewrite history with completly false things", can't remember the right word for that.

*Goes hidding in a deep deep DEEP hole*

I'll try to find back some stories about PzIV used in AT role, but I'm dead certain of this. I was also trying to find someting about the ammo issued to PzIV but still nothing .

I don't want to fall into a stupid argument, but actually reach the truth.

From everything I have read, seen for several years of research (I was developper of the AFM mod for Blitzkrieg), it is a non-sense that short barreled PzIV were supplied only with HE and a few HEAT shells as those tanks were used as anti-armor fists when the PzIII couldn't do anything but sit and burn.
And on the other hand the HEAT ammunition was quite special, and so must have been quite rare in supply, SO standard AP round must have been issued in large quantities or the PzIV bataillons couldn't have performed those AT missions.

This is my mind, now for now I've just been told several times I'm wrong without any clear information prooving this, and on the other hand I haven't read anything prooving pzIVs were carrying only HE rounds.
We're not even far from the godwin point with the "reenactor" card so now ... I would say:

VonMudra, I've understood you disagree , now let's give me any information that proove PzIVs were only supplied with HE shells, or that standard AP shells weren't producted anymore when the war broke out and I'll be quite happy to tell you're right, if not then ... Let's keep fighting 

"Depending on the ammunition"...
If you compare the penetration of the short 5cm cannon when it fires a standard AP round with a standard 7.5cm/L24 AP round the 5cm KwK is way better.

Way better ? Really ?  At point blank yes, the 50mmL42 gun performs better, but @500m the penetration is nearly the same, and after, it is inferior to the 75mmL24 or even out of range. 

Moreover the superior caliber (and ammo weight) increases drastically the damages when the armor is penetrated.

I have different sources for weapons but it tells nearly the same as yours:
http://www.tarrif.net/
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/data-tables.asp

The two cents of an experienced WW2 player and modder

Yes it sounds a bit nasty to have many AP shells with a short barelled 75mm gun BUT remember this: when the germans were still using Pz IV D/F1, that short barreled 75mm gun was one of the most powerful guns in a tank for AT purposes, and the tank crews had to do with what they had (for example to fight T34s on the Eastern front).
So for PzIVD / F1 there shouldn't be much change in the shell types available (there are maybe a bit too much HEAT shells though).
However, the amount of HE shells should be drastically increased in PzIIIN, and AP shots nearly removed, as when that variant appeared, the short barreled 75mm was completly outdated and only fitted in a tank for infantry support purposes.